I read posts here from atheists who seem completely unaware of the deepest questions posed by current new paradigm science. How can talk of "God" be so ridiculous when we have the superluminal communication of entangled quanta and the propagation of holographic torsion-wave interference patterns in the quantum vacuum?
Maybe believers could stop thinking that "God" will disappear if they let go of their ancient superstitions about what "God" is. Maybe atheists could stop thinking that science must inevitably reveal a soulless mechanical universe.
2007-02-02 08:52:18 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What makes you think I believe "God" to be omnipotent, in the sense of potentially determining all events? I don't.
2007-02-02 08:57:49 · update #1
J.P. -- state *is* information. Information is what's encoded holographically in the ZPF.
2007-02-02 09:17:57 · update #2
As for determinism -- under the circumstances, that seems to be more of an axoim than an observation, while freedom can be observed in the one reality we know from within -- ourselves.
2007-02-02 09:22:28 · update #3
No superluminal communication of information is allowed. Only that of states.
For example, I entangle two electrons and send you one of them (ignore, for now, the intense difficulties of this... I invoke an oracle for the sake of discussion *g*).
I now observe mine. It is spin-up. Yours is now spin-down. However, there is no way to transmit information this way, because my observation lead to a quantumly random collapse, meaning true randomness over the probability curve. The state was transmitted, not information.
However, even the holographic universe results in determinism -- it's still subject to propagation rules for information. Sure, HU-Theory allows for effects like telepathy or clairvoyance ... but they happen under quantum influence, and quantum physics is mathematically consistent. This just means the rules show how we react locally and globally instead of us being entirely local.
You cannot avoid the nihilistic reduction any way you cut it, even with HU-Theory.
----------------
Even under HU-Theory, the mind, embodied as electrochemical reactions in the brain or as a quantum subsystem that acts through the brain, is still subject to the Church-Turing Thesis. This means it is deterministic, even in view of quantum randomness, given MWI mentioned in one of your previous questions.
And technically, no, state is not information. I'll have to dig out my theory of computation book and cryptography book though when I get home to see if I can communicate why ... I remember even I struggled with the concept.
2007-02-02 09:00:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly. Atheists should stop thinking that science can provide such a solution. Science is not capible becaus it is not ment to be believed it is ment for explination. Similarly you should not use science to make the talk of god less rediculous. Science has nothing to do with such maters. If atheists wish to attack relegion they should do it on there own logical phelosophical terms. Belief is not proved with evidence.
2007-02-02 17:30:22 · answer #2 · answered by Michael M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A natural being who is powerful enough to be considered god but who acts through natural means (including entangled quanta, vibrating 13 dimensional strings, or colliding branes) is certainly a possibility and as soon as religious cultists are willing to admit their god into the natural universe I would be willing to work with them to try and find Him (or Her, or It, or Them).
Clarke once said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Perhaps we could add a corollary "Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from god."
42
2007-02-02 16:59:47 · answer #3 · answered by Dave P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
IMO the only thing closest to a "god" is the universe itself...that isn't a being and doesn't give a damn about worship or anything for that matter.
2007-02-02 17:05:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only god I think existed was an extraterrestrial visitor.
And it was no god but a superior being with superior technology.
2007-02-02 17:02:15 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're falling into "God is all around us" land.
I simply would not call something that comes from the simple laws and interactions of nature "God". God is something that goes beyond the bounds of the possible.
2007-02-02 16:58:03 · answer #6 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Did you have a thesaurus next to you when you wrote this?? Unecessarily cumbersome words.
The idea of God just seems grossly unlikely.
I mean, there's proof of evolution and the Bible still speaks of God creating woman and man.
2007-02-02 16:56:27 · answer #7 · answered by beelz 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Ann Margret, I believe.
2007-02-02 17:06:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You seem completely unaware of the concept that quantum physics and such are actually showing more and more that your concept of an omnipotent creator being is even MORE illogical.
_()_
2007-02-02 16:56:44 · answer #9 · answered by vinslave 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Are you trying to subvert science to your own ends for some reason?
2007-02-02 17:03:08 · answer #10 · answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋